quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:

quote:

Originally posted by JabaliHunter:

quote:

Originally posted by MikeBurke:
This is another case of our enemies using social media in a far better manner than us. We seldom get out a decent message on social media. 99% of what I see is about killing and the great luxury hunt.

The problem is that the decent message requires an audience willing and capable of engaging in a rational manner to economic, environmental, ecological, scientific and socio-cultural issues. In simple terms it's a broadsheet message.

The anti message does not - it only requires an emotional response to sensationalism. It is a tabloid message.

It is ironic that much of the material put out there by so-called hunters is designed for a tabloid audience also. It elicits the same kind of response, but from the different perspective of a hunting audience. If more hunters wanted to engage in the broadsheet message, then that is the message that would be put out more frequently. Unfortunately, it seems that the majority do not.

Jabilihunter,
Let me take your argument a step further.
Each "side" believes they are right.
Each "side" is emotionally engaged in helping protect/conserve/enhance wildlife and wild places.
Each side has a method we believe to be the answer.

This same situation arose in the 1st century with the arrival of Jesus. The Jews and pagans viewed him vastly differently. The arguments of what constitutes a "spiritual or "right" life" continue to this day.

The most successful discussions on this centered around the people who were known as "apologists". CS Lewis was one of the best known and well regarded. He was once an atheist that became a sold out believer that Jesus was the Son of God and offered the only way to eternal life.

That obviously started a firestorm among his intellectual friends. They discussed/debated and "worked" this subject for many years.

In the end, some converted to CS Lewis's position, others did not. He used the language of his opponents and argued from logic and from their perspective to prove and articulate his position.

As hunters, we should note this. We should be well versed in social media, we should know the language of the PETA and anti crowd. We must know the facts and be able to articulate without getting emotional what our role and position is. Again, we will not convert them all, but we will win a few.

In the end, yelling and calling people names does not win folks over. An example is our current election - Trump is calling out everyone, Hillary is silent and staying task with what she thinks is her message. She is having success, Trump is looking insensitive and uncaring at this point. Look at how she phrases her arguments and how Trump phrases his.

This appeals to people who are not confrontation oriented. In the end, few people want to go toe to toe to argue something. And if we do, we lose them.

We can stand our ground as the NRA does and not capitulate - but we have to win them over. A hammer does not work, reason often does.

As an aside, look at a few of the posters on AR. We have a few that like to go for throat at the slightest provocation. We have others that will discuss and articulate a perspective. I rarely read the "go for the throat" posts as they do not accomplish anything. I read "reasonableness".